Mazowe Mine v Mlauzi (Civil Application 132 of 2005; SC 18 of 2005) [2005] ZWSC 18 (6 June 2005)
The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the intended appeal is based on a finding of fact, not law, and thus does not meet the statutory requirement for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] ZWSC 18
- Parties
- Applicant: Mazowe Mine; Respondent: Leonard Mlauzi
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zimbabwe
- Jurisdiction
- Zimbabwe
- Case Number
- Civil Application 132 of 2005 ; SC 18 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal From Employment, Appeal Procedure, Out of Time Application
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mazowe Mine
Applicant
Leonard Mlauzi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
- 2 Whether the appeal raises a question of law
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the intended appeal is based on a finding of fact, not law, and thus does not meet the statutory requirement for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Leave to file an appeal to the Supreme Court out of time is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
DISTRIBUTABLE (13) Civil Application No. 132/05 Judgment No. SC. 18/05 MAZOWE MINE v LEONARD MLAUZI SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, JUNE 7, 2005 Before: CHEDA JA, In Chambers, in terms of Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules The applicant was the employer of the respondent. The respondent was dismissed from employment on the allegation that he had stolen some gold. The matter went to the Labour Court and that court granted the respondent’s appeal on the grounds that the allegation against the respondent had not been proved. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Labour Court, as it is now out of time. The reason for not noting the appeal in time is that Labour Court judgments are not handed down in the same way as High Court and Supreme Court judgments. However, when a matter is stood down for judgment, it is important that parties should make a followup to find out when the judgment is ready. In this case, the judgment was served on the applicant’s legal practitioners on 3 March 2005. The legal practitioners are said to have immediately advised Mr B Mons of Metallon Gold Mining (Pvt) Ltd (“Metallon”) about the judgment and the right to appeal. No appeal was noted. There is no explanation why the legal practitioners advised Mr Mons of Metallon instead of the applicant. If the applicant knew that Mr Mons was no longer in charge of its affairs, there is no explanation why the legal practitioners were not advised. There is no explanation why Mr Mons did nothing or failed to advise SC 18/05 the legal practitioners of the change. There is no affidavit from Mr Mons or from the legal practitioners to confirm the above. In addition, the finding of the Labour Court that the theft was not proved is a point of fact and not a point of law. Section 91 of the Labour Relations Act [Chapter 28:01] provides for appeals to the Labour Court. Section 92(2) provides for appeals on a question of law only from a decision of the Labour Court to the Supreme Court. There is no question of law in this case. The appeal is based on a finding of fact by the Labour Court. The appeal cannot be allowed. Accordingly leave to file an appeal to the Supreme Court out of time is hereby dismissed with costs. Gill, Godlonton & Gerrans, applicant's legal practitioners